Keith Hunt - Joseph's Birthright #24- Page Twenty-four   Restitution of All Things

  Home Previous Page Next Page

Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright #24

A Few More Identities


THERE  IS  A  PLAIN  VERSE  IN  THE  BOOK  OF  2 SAMUEL  THAT  A 
CHILD  CAN  UNDERSTAND.  GOD  TELLS  US  THAT  HE WOULD  APPOINT 
A  PLACE  FOR  ISRAEL  -  OBVIOUSLY  A  NEW  PLACE  AS  IT  IS 
IN  THE  FUTURE  TENSE,  FROM  THE  LAND  THEY  WERE  IN  -  THE 
HOLY  HAND.  THIS  ONE  VERSES  PROVES  GOD  WAS  PLANNING  TO 
MOVE  ISRAEL  OUT  INTO  A  NEW  LAND.  THE  VERSE  IS  2 SAMUEL
7:10 -  Keith Hunt
...... 

JUDAH'S SCEPTRE AND JOSEPH'S BIRTHRIGHT #24

by Allen (1917)
  

A FEW MORE IDENTITIES


     In Ezekiel's riddle concerning the kingdom of Israel which
is in the northwest isles of the sea, that fruitful land by the
great waters to which those two ships of Dan carried their royal
passengers, we are told that the kingdom became a green tree
after the royal pair were united and placed on the throne in the
height of Israel, and that it became a goodly cedar. Of that tree
it is said, "Under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the
shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell."
     All understand, of course, that the prophecies of this
riddle are given in veiled language, mostly metaphor, but we know
of no prophecies in all the word of God that have been any more
perfectly fulfilled than those of this riddle, and we affirm that
there can be found no race on the face of the earth in which the
conditions, as given in the above, are so completely fulfilled as
in the Anglo-Saxon race; first in England and her colonies, and
then in America.
     "Fowl of every wing," i. e., people of every nation, all
dwelling under the royal cedar, whose scions came from Lebanon
(Palestine territory), or under the extended shadow of its
branches; that is, directly under the central power, or under the
dominion of one of its protectorates, or else under the
protection of the separated brother of the house of Joseph, i.
e., Manasseh, the brother of Ephraim, or America, England's
brother nation.
     The fact that these two nations have with them in their home
country so many people of other nationalities has been used as an
argument to prove that it is not possible for the Anglo-Saxons to
be the lost house of Israel; but the very fact that this is so,
and that men of other nations can come among us, take out their
naturalization papers, become citizens, and have equal rights
with those who are home-born, has on its very face the proof that
we are Israel. For the Lord gave commandment unto Israel saying,
"When a stranger shall sojourn with thee he shall be as one that
is born in the land. One law shall be to him that is home-born,
and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." (Ex.12:48-49.)
The political conditions mentioned above do obtain in Anglo-Saxon
countries, and in no other countries of the world.
     The reason given for the establishment of the law that
permitted stranger to become as home-born citizen in Israel, is,
that they were strangers in the land of Egypt; as before them
Abraham their father was a stranger in the land of promise. The
fact that this law prevailed in Israel, and that it is the law in
all Anglo-Saxon commonwealths, shows that they are one and the
same people, and accounts for the following state of affairs in
Ephraim, which we must remember is the representative name of the
house of Joseph "Ephraim, he hath mixed himself among the people;
Strangers (foreigners) have devoured his strength, and he knoweth
it not." (Hosea 7:8-9.)
     Foreign labor, anarchy,* and Romanism 1 In both England and
America many of these strangers are naturalized and become as
home-born, only that they may secure official authority, power,
and prestige in their affairs of state so as to help the
noncitizen foreign hordes to devour the strength of their
government, and yet, apparently, they know it not.
Surely, these identities, as given above, are some of the
"waymarks" which the Lord commanded Ephraim-Israel to set up.
(Jer.30:20-21.) But there are yet others.
     We have certainly made it clear, that the Tuatha de Danaans
of northern Ireland were those of the tribe of Dan who belonged
to the seacoast colony, or at least that part who abode in their
ships and thus escaped. But where Dan is there Israel must be
also, for Dan was a part of Israel, and was to judge or Dan his
people, as one of the tribes of Israel. It is a well
authenticated fact of history that the Milesians, or Scots,
inhabited the north of Ireland as well as the tribe of Dan, that
they were the same race of people, and that the word Scots means
wanderers. Prof. Totten says: "Scythopolis has been traced to
Sikytopolis (city of Siccuth), a corruption of Succoth, or
Scothotti, the city of the Scots, Scyths,
......

*Since these words were written the President of the United
States, William McKinley, has fallen a victim to Anarchy.
......


Sacs, or wanderers, i. e., "dwellers in booths."  When Ephraim
was cast out, Hosea declared, "they shall be wanderers among the
nations," and this is in harmony with Amos, who says that they
should be sifted through the nations, as corn is sifted through a
sieve, and yet not one grain, or stone (margin) was to fall to
the ground. Hence, they were to wander through the nations until
they reached the isles of the sea, that God-appointed place for
his people, where their enemies should not waste them, and where
they should renew their strength.
     But where Israel and Dan are, there, too, must the Canaanite
be, and it is a well-known fact that the settlers of southern
Ireland are a vastly different people from those of northern
Ireland, and that the difference is in their origin, for they
sprang from a different race. Moses said to Israel: "But if ye
will not drive out the inhabitants of the land before you; then
it shall come to pass that those which ye let remain of them
shall be pricks in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and shall
vex you in the land wherein ye dwell." (Num.33:55) The Lord also
said, "If ye do in anywise go back and cleave unto the remnant of
these nations, even those that remain among you, and shall make
marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you; know
for a certainty that the Lord your God will no more drive out any
of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and
traps unto you." (Josh.23:12-I3.)
     The Philistines most certainly did become a snare to the
tribe of Dan, for they were the first tribe of Israel to
fraternize with them, and the first who joined with them in the
worship of their god Baal. Simeon soon joined with them, and so
eventually did both Israel and Judah.
     The evolution of the name of this Canaanitish nation is from
Philistine to Phoenician, then Phenesian, then Venetian, and then
Fenian. The Fenians of Ireland boast of their Phoenician origin,
had the sixteen letter alphabet, and many evidences to justify
their claim. These people lived with Dan and Simeon in Palestine,
and came with them to Ireland. They are still "hewers of wood and
drawers of water," and certainly "thorns in the sides and pricks
in the eyes" only of England and America. This is the vexing
"Irish question." For, "These are the nations which the Lord
left, to prove Israel by thorn." (Judges 3:1.)
     The physiognomy of Israel must be different from that of the
Jews. We must remember that although Benjamin was with the
kingdom of Judah, they were the children of Rachel, and that they
differed much from the characteristic Jew. both in looks and in
speech. The Galileans were Benjaminites; hence all the apostles
of Christ, except Judas, were Benjaminites, for they were
Galileans; and while Christ was in the judgment Hall, some of
those who stood by said to Peter, "Surely thou also art one of
them, for thy speech betrayeth thee." Also Esther, that lovely
daughter of the captive people, and Mordecai, that "Jew of the
Jews," could pass in and out of the palace of Ahasuerus, and not
betray the fact that they were of Abrahamic blood, because they
were Benjaminites. (Esther 2:5-10-20.)

     If these differences were noticeable in the case of those
tribes, which differences lay in the fact that they were only
half-brothers, how much more so would they be in the case of the
house of Joseph, who were still further removed from Judah, in
that they were half Egyptian! Hence, the Abrahamic origin of the
Anglo-Saxon has not been disproved, when its opponents assert
that we do not possess "crooked noses." But we assert that, if
they had the same "shew of countenance" that is peculiar to the
Jewish people, they could not be the house of Joseph. But we
Saxons get our straight noses from our royal Egyptian ancestor.  
We say royal Egyptian ancestor, because Joseph married Asenath,
the daughter of Poti-pherah, Prince of On, instead of a "Priest
of On," as you may see by consulting the original reading of
Genesis 41:45, whereas the Saxon has neither a decided aquiline
nose, or its pronounced opposite, the Egyptian acute angle, but
he has an exquisite Egyptio-Jacobic blend, which is much more
handsome.

(I doubt very much indeed that the "southern" Irish, for the most
part, are not Israelite, but Gentiles. There may be some Gentile
blood in them, but I would say the vast majority of Irish - north
and south - are Israelites - Keith Hunt)

     It has been made clear to our readers that Omri, the sixth
king of Israel, built the city of Samaria, the third and
permanent capital of Israel, and that eventually the entire
country, formerly called "All Israel," became known as Samaria,
because that was the name of its capital; also that Samaria
became one of the national names of Israel, and is so used in
some prophecies concerning them. Hence Omri is regarded as the
real founder of the kingdom of Samaria, and Samaria-Israel was
often referred to by other nations as the House of Omri.
     When Shalmanesar, the king of Assyria, who led Israel into
captivity, made a record of that captivity on the tablets of
Assyria, he called them the House of Omri (Beth Khumree); also
when Israel was confederate with Resin, king of Syria, and went
against the Jews, and the Jews besought Tiglath-Pilesar, who was
at that time king of Assyria, to become their confederate, he
also in his records referred to Israel as the Beth-Khumree. In
the annals of Sargon, who was also a king of Assyria (Isa.20:1),
successor of Shalmanesar, and predecessor of Senacharib, Israel
is called Beth Khumree (House of Omri), and their capital city
Khumree. On the Nimroud obelisk, "Jehu, the son of Omri," is
written "Yahua-abil-Khumree." Prof. Rawlinson, who does not
believe this truth we are enforcing, says: "Jehu is usually
called in the Bible the son of Nimshi - although Jehosaphat was
his actual father (2 Kings 9:20), but the Assyrians, taking him
for the legitimate successor to the throne, named as 'his father,
or rather ancestor, 'Omri,' the founder of the Kingdom of Samaria
- Omri's name being written on the obelisk, as it is in the
inscriptions of Shalmanesar, where the Kingdom of Israel is
always called the country of 'Beth Omri.' Dr. Hincks also says
'The title, Son of Omri,' is equivalent to that of King of
Samaria, the city which Omri built, and which was known to the
Assyrians as Beth Omri, or Khumri."

     The tribes of both Dan and Simeon belonged, of course, to
the Beth Khumree, when used as meaning the Kingdom of Omri, or
Samaria. Simeon seems to have clung to this name far more
tenaciously than did Dan, for they still call themselves and
their country Kimry. Saville says: "This name Kymri, or Cymry, as
it is more commonly written, is in reality the plural of Kymro,
meaning a Welsh-man, and the country of the Kymry is called by
themselves Khymru, which has been Latinized into the well-known
name of Cambria. The letter v in the Welsh language has two
powers, and both these powers are active in the word Kymry. This
letter v sounds as u, except when it stands in the last syllable
of a word, and then it has the sound o f the Italian i or the
English ee! Hence, the correct pronunciation of the country of
Wales, or land of the Cymry, in its ancient tongue would be as
near as possible to the names Kumree, Khumree, or Kumri."
Thomas Stephens, in the preface to his "Literature of the Kymry,"
says: "On the map of Britain, facing St. George's Channel, is a
group of counties called Wales, inhabited by a people distinct
from, and but very imperfectly understood by, those who surround
them. Their neighbors call them Welsh-men. Welsh or Walsch is not
a proper name, but a Teutonic term signifying 'strangers,' and
was applied to all persons who were not of that family: but the
proper name of these people is Kymry. They are the last remnant
of the Kimmerioi of Homer, and of the Kimry (Cimbri) of Germany.
From the Cimbric Chersonesus (Jutland) a portion of these landed
on the shores of Northumberland, gave their name to the county of
Cumberland, and in process of time followed the seaside to their
present resting-place, where they still call themselves Kintry,
and give their country a similar name. Their history, clear,
concise and authentic, ascends to a high antiquity. Their
language was embodied in verse long before the languages now
spoken rose into notice, and their literature, cultivated and
abundant lays claim to being the most ancient in modern Europe."

     Thus we find that the Khumree, Kumri, Kimry, Cumbre, Cimbri,
or Cambrians, as the name is variously called in different
tongues, were strangers and wanderers among the nations until
they settled in the isles of the sea with the rest of their
brethren, the Brith-ish or covenant people.
     "Herodotus, the 'Father of History,' tells us much about the
Khumbri, a people who, in his day, dwelt in the Crimean peninsula
and thereabout. He particularly notes that they had come into
that territory from Media, which he remarks was not their
original home or birthplace." - Our Race.
     We have thus conclusively followed the word Khumree, for the
reason that the people who are known as Angles, Saxons, Danes,
Celts or Kelts, Jutes, Scots, Welsh, Scyths (or Scythians), or
Normans can trace themselves back to Media-Persia, but no
further, and find their ancestors in the Khumree, at the place,
and at the very time, when Israel was losing her identity and was
actually known in the history of that country as the Beth
Khumree.
     We cannot take time or space to deal with the origin of all
the above names, but we feel that we must say something
concerning the name Saxon, as it is the most general name of the
race - really the present generic name of the house of Joseph.
It seems to be a well-known Hebraism, and for some reason it
certainly was a very common custom among the Israelites, to drop
the first letter of a proper name. Bible examples of this custom
are: Oshea, other-wise Hoshea; Hagar, otherwise Agar; Jachan,
otherwise Achan; Heber, otherwise Eber, etc. Scholars tell us, if
we have caught their thought, that this Hebrew idiom is peculiar
to the possessive case, and also to allow the introduction of an
affix.
     When Jacob transferred the birthright to the sons of Joseph
he, with one hand resting on the head of each, prayed: "Let my
name (Israel) be named on them, and the name of my fathers
Abraham and Isaac." The birthright kingdom did, as we have seen,
inherit the name of Israel, and also that of Isaac. For Amos
says: "And the high places of Isaac shall be desolate, and the
sanctuaries of Israel (Bethel and Dan) shall be laid waste, and I
will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword." (Amos 7:
9.) Here we have Isaac, Israel and the house of Jeroboam used as
interchangeable names for the ten-tribed kingdom. Amaziah also
says to Jeroboam, the king of Isaac-Israel: "The Lord said unto
me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel. Now, therefore, hear thou
the word of the Lord, (but) thou sayest, Prophesy not against
Israel, and drop not thy word against the house of Isaac." (Amos
7:16.)
     Thus the name of Isaac was named upon the house of Joseph,
and it is true, both in race and name, that, "in Isaac shall thy
seed be called." It seems that the Jews had a preference for the
name of Jacob, but Israel clung to the name of Isaac, especially
after they were taken into captivity; they dropped the name of
Israel and called themselves "Saac" - Saxae, or Saxae, as per
Latin derivation - which is nothing more or less than the Hebrew
name of Isaac, from which the initial letter 'I' has been
dropped.

     It is now a well-authenticated fact that the word Saxon is
derived from the Hebrew name of I-saac, together with an affix
which means sons of. Prof. Totten says: "In most of the Eastern
languages 'sons of is written 'sunnia.' It is equivalent to the
Scottish 'Mac' and the English and Irish 'Fitz'--Mac Donald, son
of Donald; Fitz Henry, son of Henry. So, in the distant home of
our ancestors, Saac-Sunnia means sons of Isaac. Stambul is formed
of Istambul by dropping the prefix I, and so the Saxon is a
direct descendant of our father Isaac. Dr. W. Holt Yates accepts
this derivation of the Saxon name as positive, and the Rev. W. H.
Poole, D.D., speaks of it as follows: "It is a little curious to
glean from the ancient nations and from the stone monuments of
the early times the various forms in which this word is to be
found. I will here insert a few from a list of my own gleaned
from ancient history, thus: Sons of Isaac, Sons of Saac,
Saac-Sunnia, Saac-Suna, Saac-Sena Sacaa-pena, Esakska,
Sacae-Amyrqui, Beth-Sakai (House of Isaac), Sunnia-Sakai,
Sakai-Suna, Saca-Suna, Sacae-Sunnae, Sackisina, Sakaa-Sunia,
Saca-cine, Saka-Suna, SacasSani, Sakas-Saeni, Saxi-Suna,
Sach-Suni, Sachi, Sacaa, Sakah, Saachus, Saacus, Sacho, Saxo,
Saxoi, Saxonia, Saxones, Saxae, Sach-sen, Sack-sen, Saxesen,
Saxone, Saxony, Saxon." - "Our Race."
     Concerning the etymology of the word Saxon, Yatman says:
"Its history is as follows: The Persians used the terms Sacae and
Scythian as convertible, whether from a corrupt rendering of one
from the other or because the Sacae, a great tribe of Scythians
(wanderers) bordering upon them, were so called by a tribal name.
Of the fact of the identity of the Sacae and the Scythians there
is not the shadow of a doubt, and it is clear that these people
called their country Sacasena. It is equally clear that the
Saxons of England were the Scythians or Celte-Scythians. Their
geographical position in Europe is accurately described by
Plutarch, Tacitus, Ptolemy, and other authors."
     To this testimony all the historians agree. Strabo asserts
that the most ancient Greek historians knew the Sacaea as a
people who lived beyond the Caspian Sea. Diodorus says: "The
Sacaea sprung from a people in Media who obtained a vast and
glorious empire."
     Ptolemy finds the Saxons in a race of Scythians, called
Sakai, who came from Media.
     Pliny says: "The Sakai were among the most distinguished
people of Scythia, who settled in Armenia, and were called Sacae-Sani."
     Albinus says: "The Saxons were descended from the ancient
Sacae of Asia."
     Prideaux finds that the Cimbrians came from between the
Black and Euxine (Caspian) seas, and that with them came the
Angli.
     Sharon Turner, the great Saxon historian, says "The Saxons
were a Scythian nation, and were called Saca, Sachi, Sakai,
Sach-sen."
     Gawler, in "Our Scythian Ancestors" (Page 6), says: "The
word 'Saacae,' is fairly and without straining or imagination,
translatable as Isaacites."

     But why has it been necessary for the historians of these
various nations thus to trace this name, search records, tablets
and monuments, and hunt for the origin of the Anglo-Saxons? Are
they an obscure people?  Are they a feeble nation? Are they an
ignorant folk? Are they an uncivilized race? No; they are
diametrically opposite to all this. They are in every way the
greatest race on earth, but they do not know where they
originated, nor who were their ancestorsthey are lost.
     Some of these historians whom we have quoted do not agree
among themselves as to the origin of the Saxons, but belong to
different schools of contention, and are wrangling over the
question whether these lost people belong to the Aryan, or to the
Semitic race. The only use which we have, just here, for their
contention is to show that they all trace the Saxons to the very
place where the captive ten tribes of Israel were deported by
Shalmanesar, the King of Assyria. These same historians also show
that the Sax-ons sprang into existence, in so far as their modern
and mediaeval history is concerned, about three years after the
Israelites were taken to that country, and that there they lose
them and can trace them no further.
     Since both the Saxons and Samaritan-Israelites are lost, and
since those Israelites are the sons of Isaac, and were so called
in sacred history, and since both people bear the name of their
father I-saac, we have no hesitancy in saying that they are one
and the same, and that the lost are found. And since these people
have been told that they were not the chosen people of God, we,
together with many others, now declare unto them that they are
the natural children of Abraham, the national sons of God.
     It is a most significant fact, that Lia-F-aid, the name of
the Bethel stone, is the same, whether read from right to left,
as the Hebrews do, or whether it is read from left to right, as
the Saxons do. Also, the word has just seven letters (the perfect
number), and if we start with the fourth (the human number), or
central letter, and read from that, either to the right or to the
left, we have in both instances the same word, i. e., f-a-i-1, in
which if we use ph for the f sound, we have that Hebrew word
wonderful, which is one of the names of the Messiah. Or if we
start either with the right or left, read to the central letter
and then back again to the place from which we started
(l-i-af-a-i-l), then we have the full name of Liafail.
     In a former chapter, when quoting from Irish chronicles
concerning Liafail, we showed that one form of the word, or one
of its names, was written Leagael. This word has the same
peculiarities as that of Liafail in that it also has seven
letters, and that when it is read either from left to right or
from right to left, it is the same word, or by beginning either
to the right or left and reading to the central letter, and back
again, we still have Leagael, and by beginning with the fourth,
or central letter, and reading either from left to right as the
Saxons do, or from right to left, as the Hebrews do, we have in
each case the same word, i. e., gael.
     This word gael is a Hebrew word, and yet it is absolutely
one of the most important words in all the history of the Saxon
people; for it is the name of that tongue, speech, or dialect,
which is the very root of the "King's English," as that language
is sometimes called, which is now known as the mother tongue of
the Saxons, but which evidently is not the original language of
that race, for it is only several hundred years old, and these
historians from whom we have quoted trace them back along the
line of history for two thousand five hundred and twenty years.
The fact of this change in the language of the Saxons, as the
years have been rolling by, dovetails into the history of
Ephraim-Israel as foretold by the prophet Isaiah, who in the
first verse of the twentyeighth chapter says: "Woe to the crown
of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim." Remember we are not
dealing with a race of saints, but with a people who have largely
gone away from their God, although to begin with, they were a
people who were "wholly a right seed." Nationally speaking, while
other nations are opium eaters, and have other vices which cling
to them as a people, the Saxons are the drunkard nation of the
earth. Great Britain, in drunkenness, is worse than America; but
America is bad enough in this respect to be so recognized by the
more temperate nations of the world. But our chief object in
giving this quotation is to show that the prophet was addressing
Ephraim, of whom he further says: "For, with stammering lips and
another tongue, will he (the Lord) speak to this people." The
Hebrew word, which in this text, is translated 'stammering' is
that word 'Gael.'
     It is a remarkable fact that Young in his "Analytical
Concordance" gives us the word Leag, as the original Hebrew word,
while Strong in his "Exhaustive Concordance" gives us the equally
correct word Gael, from the same Hebrew word. But be it Leag to
the Hebrew or Gael to the Saxon, it is the same word to the same
people, which they have reversed and given to their newer
language, which is called the Gael, or Gael-ic tongue, which is
not only the foundation of the English language, but is yet
spoken in its primitive simplicity in many places in Wales,
Scotland and the north of Ireland.
     Wa-els is only another form of Gaels, and the people whose
language was called Gael were themselves often called Gaels. At
first when a person needed to speak of but one of these people,
the custom was to say "One Gael," but as the language changed,
the form of one changed to 'an' before a vowel sound, and to 'a'
before a consonant sound. Thus one Gael became Angael. And since
the Hebrew word 'ish' means man, we can understand how things
would get a little mixed, and how very easy would be the
evolution from ANGA-EL-ISH-MAN to AN ENGLISHMAN.
     Also, since these same people were called Angli, and Sax-es,
the combination and evolution of these names into Anglo-Saxon
would be inevitable.
....................

To be continued


  Home Previous Page Top of Page Next Page

 
Navigation List:
 

 
Word Search:

PicoSearch
  Help